Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

W Portrait

Why is W the only president not to have a portrait, and has a photo instead? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The official portrait is generally done after the president leaves office. Clinton's was just unveiled in 2004. --dave pape (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bush just had his portrait done. There's a CNN article about it at CNN's website. We should switch the picture.Donkeykongcountry (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you guys. Changed the image to (File:Bushportrait.jpg)Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the suit-and-tie days are over. Maybe Obama's portrait will have him shooting baskets. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

He's also subliminally giving the "bird" to his critics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you showing this casual pic of W instead of his formal portrait? Wiki has a reputation for being liberal; this doesn't help that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.25 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing my previous post correctly ... the CNN website linked above clearly shows the correct presidential portrait. Here it is again. I just want to help make wiki better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.25 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The portrait you are referring to in the CNN article is not the White House Portrait, which is the portrait being used for every President on this list. The "Casual" Portrait I introduced is indeed Bush's selected Official Portrait, and will likely be hung somewhere in the White House, as are Kennedy's, Clinton's, etc. I appreciate your desire to help this wonderful project, but the portrait stands.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The casual portrait is the correct one. Why, might I ask, has it been removed from the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seatbelt blue (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Astrofreak92. 129.188.33.25 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, the casual portrait, while an "official likeness," is not the official White House portrait:

"a White House spokesman later clarified that these are not the official "official portraits." Those will be completed after the president leaves office and will hang at the White House" [1]

It seems that this portrait is intended for display at the National Portrait Gallery, but that another one will later be unveiled for the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.199.122 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it isn't official, why can't we use it? It looks a lot better in comparison to the official pictures his predecessors had. --Evildevil (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

President Barack

His middle initial "H" should be included as it's the style with other presidents on the list with a known middle name. The argument to remove the initial because it's not needed holds no weight, because you can make the same argument for Clinton's J, Bush Sr.'s H.W., and Bush's W.--68.198.22.50 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)HannyNYR 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Please wait until Jan 20th. I know it's really really hard but you have to wait. Also, if you are going to put him up, at least get the color ledgend right, blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.72.123 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue is an example of wikilawyering gone incredibly wrong. Of course he should be placed on the list; everyone whose going to be looking at this page, in America and elsewhere, will be looking for this information. To not include because of some lame excuse about him being merely the "President-elect" as opposed to "President" is as dumb as the whole non-sense about the "nominee" and "Presumptive nominee" during the primary season on both party's sides, even after it became abundantly clear who that was going to be. Short of an unforeseen event, Obama will be the next President. SiberioS (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. They will be looking at United States presidential election, 2008 for this information. They would look on this page for a list of people sworn in as POTUS. -- Jwinters | Talk 08:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with wikilawyer. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly labeled as president elect, there is no confusion. He should remain on the list. --Delta-NC (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know where to post/ask this, but I thought I would do it under President Obama. I think we should have, Barack H. Obama II, as his name. In the Should we use Initials in the Presidents' names section, everyone agrees it should be added. I think that since he is a Jr (II) that should be added also. Any thoughts? --Dgreco (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to us to go trying to change common usage and creating an artificial construct that isn't used. Either his full name or "Barack Obama", nothing else. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It says he is the President-elect, and gives his start date in the future. We are being informative without being disinformative. This is good. Regarding what version of the name to use, I would suggest using going over the entire article with a unified theme. We have some people with middle initials and others without right now. Perhaps it could be based on how official documents referred to them while they were in office? Chillum 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The list should only cover up to the current president. Barack Obama has not sworn the oath of office, so he is not a US president yet. For example if new information came to light disqualifying him from the presidency, or he were to later chose not to swear the oath of office. It is not 100% certain he will take up the office, for example he might not live that long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.169.83 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He's 47 and in fine health. Why might he not live that long? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He could be run over by a bus, hit by a bolt of lightning, assassinated, have an aneurysm, be caught in the blast from a nuclear warhead aimed at Washington, D.C., or one of a multitude of other unlikely, but possible, scenarios. Quantum Burrito (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bush could be hit by a bus, and then Cheney would be president. But it hasn't happened yet, so Cheney is not on the list of presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.170.241 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Obama from List

Upon fully protecting this article, the list included Barack Obama, which it should not. This list is for Presidents of the United States, not presidents-elect, which is as far as Obama as so far come. Within the first paragraph, this article states: "This list includes only those persons who were sworn into office as President of the United States following the ratification of the United States Constitution, which took effect in 1789." I suggest removing Obama from this list. The reference at the end of the first paragraph is enough because there is still a reference to the president-elect, a title that is only relevant between election day and inauguration day. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He is not YET the president. No reliable source claims he is. All the rest is POV pushing and partisan glee. Newguy34 (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree about he is not yet president but I think you're just making yourself sound very idiotic saying that there is no reliable source that says he won the 2008 elections.--24.192.75.54 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Idiocy is not being able to read and comprehend the written word. I wrote that no reliable source says he is CURRENTLY [emphasis added] the president, which is the operative point of the discussion at hand. Try to be civil. Newguy34 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. He will not be the President until January 20. Yes, outside of some unforseen circumstance, Obama will be the 44th President. Then again, Bush may somehow die in office prior to January 20th, causing Dick Cheney to be the 44th President and Obama the 45th. Obama should be mentioned in the opening paragraph as the President-Elect, but should not be in the list proper. -- Jwinters | Talk 08:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point! Wikipedia is not about predicting the future! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Remove Obama from table, mention that he is president elect designate in the lede prose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Inclusion of the list violates established policy.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 08:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - Inclusion of Obama is in line with established wikipedia practice of including elected successors in lists of heads of state, so long as they are accurately depicted as such. Obama is NOT listed as a president, but as the president-elect. This information is accurate and relevant to the list.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - He is not yet a successor, as Bush is still serving his term. It is possible that he could not become the successor. Possible scenarios are: Failure to prove that he was born in America, Assasination, or he could decline the position.

Disagree face the facts, he will be president, to leave him off because of some wikilawyering is plain stupid. I would say that this is a time to just do it. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree it is spliting hairs and playing politics and this particular President-elect is without question of particular historical significance (and will be looked upon as such by historians of the future without a doubt: now approx ~220 years since independence to first afro-am pres.; ~90 years since women got the vote; ~45 years or so since afro-am's first got the vote... Martin Luther King's "Dream" fulfilled: a highly significant feat by any unbiased and objective measure). 122.148.173.37 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Recommend: Adding (Term commences January 20, 2009) under entry of President-elect. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: I think to 99% of the people who come and look at this page between now and Jan 20th, not finding Obama's name at the bottom will seem weird. If Obama is not the 44th President for any reason, the page is easy to correct. The text currently used is well chosen and makes it clear he is not yet President. — ciphergoth 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, as another contributor above, WP:IAR is clearly the overriding policy here - it's very clear that putting it in makes Wikipedia a better and more useful encyclopaedia than leaving it out. — ciphergoth 12:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, omitting it would just be pedantry, especially when there's a note saying that it's President-elect. Should something befall George Bush, then it can be altered -- we should move with the times. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I agree with everyone above, stop holding off what has already happened.--Nebula Wolf (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Just omitting him altogether would leave the page incomplete. After all, he was elected. Maybe a compromise could be achieved in mentioning Obama's election in the beginning of the article. However, adding Obama's name to the list as "President-elect" doesn't seem wrong or inaccurate to me. --170.66.1.232 (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree per WP:CRYSTAL. 2 months is a long period of time before Inauguration Day where anything can happen to the incumbent or incoming leader. Leave the detail about Obama being President-elect in the intro. Place an additional note about Obama being President-elect after the Bush entry in the table, but leave Obama out of the table until Inauguration Day. I think it's a fair compromise to have him "on the list" but "out of the table". -Madchester (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree—just like you don't see East Germany on the List of countries page because it used to be a country, we shouldn't have someone who will be president on a list of inaugurated presidents (and this is certainly not a political argument on my part, purely a logical one).Ebow (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AgreeAs of present, he's only a president-elect, not an actual president. Although he will be president once his inauguration is complete, it wouldn't be a good idea to include him in the list until then. Drakonis (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AgreeNot because of denial, but because he's still not president, George W. Bush is the current president, and as far as i know theres no such thing as bipresidential system in the US. Wait for 2 short months before adding him to the list. After all this isnt Futurepedia either, we all know he will be president, but wait for him to become president first.190.160.128.111 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's clear that he is not yet president because he has to be sworn in. What's not yet mentioned here is that he is not yet president-elect. The electoral college hasn't voted yet so he is not even president-elect yet (technically speaking, though I know any credible source gives him the title, which is, again, technically speaking, erroneous). He won't be president-elect until December 15, 2008 (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December - don't you just love American law?) per the Electoral College rules. Should something happen to Obama between now and 1/20/09, he wouldn't even belong on this list to begin with (because he never would have actually been president of the United States) and would just be mentioned as a side note in the reading ("then presumptive president-elect Obama, who was never actually sworn in..."). I think it's clear that he belongs on the page, but not in the official list. I am not making political statements, just logical ones. He has no official title but Senator. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering reading Talk:Barack Obama#President elect? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obama will not become president when he is sworn in; he will become president automatically at 12:00 am on 20 January, at the same instant that Bush's term expires.
• While it is true that Obama has not been confirmed by the electors and Senate, he has officially won the right to be represented by his own party's electors in the states where he won by popular vote. That is an integral part of the electoral process; the popular vote reported by each state is not a purely symbolic gesture, it carries legal weight and directly effects both his title and the outcome of the electoral vote in December. By political tradition in this country, that is sufficient to declare him the president-elect for all practical purposes. It is inaccurate to claim that he has no official standing, it is a multi-step process that is 3/4 complete and has been called, conceded, and accepted. The election result is official to the degree that the current president will now treat him as the president-elect and work with his transition team, so let us not pretend that the events of Nov. 4 and their consequences did not happen or have no meaning, which is nonsense.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He is not yet POTUS. Many things could happen which prevent him from being #44, some include:

1. Court battles that perclude him for whatever reason from being POTUS.
2. Death or Removal of GWB.
3. Death of BO.

• Events that might transpire to prevent Obama from becoming president are immaterial, because the article does not call him a president, it refers to his current and present status as the winner of the Nov 4 election. That is official, and significant enough to include here for the purposes of encyclopedic accuracy.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until his hand is raised before the chief justice.Plhofmei (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree as his inclusion violates WP:CRYSTAL and, more importantly, WP:V. Currently he is listed as being the 44th President of the United States; that is simply not verifiable because it has not happened and because, as noted above, there are many things that could happen that would cause him not to be #44. That all material on Wikipedia must be verifiable is a requirement, not a suggestion, and verifiability cannot be overridden by WP:IAR. Cheers, CP 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree per WP:CRYSTAL. Everyme 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is a draft proposal page at Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome that has been formulated in response to past cases of this precise problem causing endless edit wars and discussion across numerous articles. It would help if we can get some clearer Wikipedia wide policy on this - article by article consensuses are prone to inconsistent information and it's much better to have centralised discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who haven't read it, this proposal is consistent with long-standing wikipedia procedure to include both the incumbent and the incoming official, so long as he is clearly labelled as "-elect" and not yet occupying the office. The terms of draft proposal would support maintaining Obama in the list as is.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree He is not the President yet. That's a fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.80.218 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 05 November 2008

Conditional DisAgree I said the following before: "He'll be on the list soon enough. I guess it's not bad if there is an asterisk or some other disclaimer." Now I changed my mind and agree with arcticgnome below, who said: "If you don't include him we'll have daily complaints that Wikipedia is incomplete. I say add him to the bottom of the list as president-elect, but add some kind of a break between GWB and him, and do not include a presidential number nor a term number."LedRush (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)LedRush (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree He has been elected as the next President and not much will change it even though he hasn't yet taken office. I wish people would accept the facts and I especially wish that veteran Wikipedians would stop quoting policies as their arguement for a particular choice. Nobody gives a shit about policies - policies on Wikipedia are decided by a very small minority of people who use Wikipedia and to use them in your arguements suggests that you have very little to say. You may well discount my opinion because I'm not signed in but Wikipedia has always claimed that it can be used by all people regardless of whether you create (or use) a user acount or not. --217.201.7.188 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. No crystal ball. He is not President yet. He is President-elect. And none of this "President-designate" nonsense. He is President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy solution: simply make a new section entitled "President Elect", add a one-line descriptor of what that means, and then have Obama's box all by itself. There, problem solved. There's no point removing him from the page because it'll just be continually reverted until January 20. Creating a separate section solves the problem, allows Obama to be recognized on the list, and then easily intergated into the list on Jan 20. And when 2012 rolls around we can do the same thing should someone else become president elect. 23skidoo (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'Disagree - current text is very clear. If intro text is wrong, it can be corrected. People coming to this page who do not see Obama, will add him. This is meant to be an informational site, and the information offered here is relevant and useful and appropriate to the overwhelming majority of people who will visit this page in the coming months. Leaving him out makes no sense: if leaving him in conflicts with the initial paragraph, change that. DewiMorgan (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He is not the President of the USA. He will be in January and then we add him to the list. not a single second before that. Calle Widmann (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. On the one hand, he is not the president, and never has been the president, so saying he is is simply not true. On the other hand, precedent suggests we include presidents-elect in our lists. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree List him as president-elect. Jmj713 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List as President Elect Cuz he's not POTUS... yet - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree - He *is not* president. I don't even think he is officially the president-elect, because I don't think the electoral college has voted. He should no sooner be on this list than a 20-year old should be on a list of 21-year old Wikipedians. Will he eventually be 21? Probably. Is he 21? No. Same idea for president, governor, or whatever. Precedent doesn't matter when it's completely wrong. The title of this page is "List of Presidents of the United States". He is not, nor has he ever been president. Chaotic42 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree List Barack Obama as 44th President of United States, very clearly indicating that his term begins on Jan. 20, 2009. If something happens between now and then, fix the table accordingly at that time, eg. GWB dies, DC becomes 44th President. Acps110 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Obama is the 44th President. 98.211.28.180 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree The way it is now he will be the 44th president, removing him from the list because he is not president right now would mean you would have to remove the old presidents too, because they are not president right now either.87.212.16.222 (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The old presidents were the president at some point. Barack Obama is not a president yet.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia centers around FACT and not SPECULATION. Although it is likely that Obama will be President, if he is to be entered into this article, it should be made clear that he is not, and has not been President. - I think he should be included in the article, but labeled clearly as 'President-elect'. There could be circumstances [i.e. Obama's death] that could lead to him never holding Presidency. This is a list of Presidents, something that Barack Obama, of yet, is not. K^rowe 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree You are just forestalling the inevitable. He is the next Pres. In the extremely unlikely event that he is not, the page can be edited to reflect reality, just as it should be edited now to reflect reality. How many times do you have to hear "historic election" before you accept that history has been made? Mikiemike (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I'm of the opinion WIkipedia should always err on the side of including more information, possibly with a disclaimer, than not. Does anyone here really believe that millions of Wikipedia users, from other countries, whom are not versed in the nonsense legal bullshit thats being spun on here, will "get" why Obama, whom has already been plastered upon every newspaper and website as the 44th President, is not on here? Lets be realistic here people. This is like when Huckabee and Ron paul supporters insisted McCain wasn't the "presumptive nominee" until he cleared the threshold even though it was mathematically impossible for their guy to win. it was dealt with in the proper way with a disclaimer and a caveat (ie: barring any unforeseen circumstance), and left the way it should be on here. User:Siberios

Agree. Obama is not President yet. In addition, he is only the presumptive President-elect, for the United States Electoral College will not cast their ballots until December 15th. If and when he is formally elected by the Electoral College, then he should be included. This is a list of people who have already been or are currently POTUS. — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Until he is sworn in, he should not be on the list. The article title is POTUS. I hope nothing goes wrong, but anything can happen in the next three months.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He is not President yet. Period. It's obvious the only reason anyone is pushing for him to be on this list is because they are excited that he will be elected, regardless of what the current situation is. Wildonrio (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Conditional disagree - If you don't include him we'll have daily complaints that Wikipedia is incomplete. I say add him to the bottom of the list as president-elect, but add some kind of a break between GWB and him, and do not include a presidential number nor a term number. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the best idea yet. 80.223.152.10 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I change my vote and agree with this idea.LedRush (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

CommentThats nice, we can now change the motto of Wikipedia into "the peer preassure encyclopedia" too. Again, not because it wouldnt list Obama as president, it wouldnt mean the encyclopedia is on denial of the fact that he will become president in 2 months, but because technically hes still not president (the old fart sitting at the white house still is!), to go ahead and say he is the new president would be a biased statement fot no other reasson but pety celebration, yet this is not exactly an all american encyclopedia either.190.160.128.111 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Agree nor Disagree - separating obama from the rest of the list of presidents would be best. We should create another table for president-designate/elect (temporary), and we can delete the table after obama is officially president, and joined him to the rest. I must stress though, I oppose the removal of obama from this article, as he WILL become president if nothing happens - I understand WP:Crystal. The fact is he is president elect. w_tanoto (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Wiki isn't a crystal ball, and all that. There's no harm in waiting until he can be accurately added to the list. Coemgenus 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagree there is absolutely no reason not to include Obama, provided that it is made clear he is not yet sworn in. I propose using italics in the table with a clear note. Thousands of readers every hour have come to this article and want to see Obama's name and picture here. This is NOT crystal balling because there is a 99% chance that he will be inaugerated. The crystal policy only applies to unverifiable specualtion, which this is not. Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree The front pages of several, if not all, 11/5 newspapers, settle this issue better than anyone here can: New York Times: " . . . Obama was elected the 44th President . . ." Washington Post : "U. S. Decisively Elects First Black President" Finally, The Chicago Sun-Times captioned its portrait "Mr. President", not "Mr. President-Elect" (The Honolulu Advertiser seems to be more careful in its wording, however).

Further, it is commonly accepted that the still-living out-of-office US leaders are still given the formal title "President", rather than "former-" or "past-president". They're still considered Presidents, but they no longer "execute the office". Obama is in effect, part of that fraternity, just on the "opposite side" of his presidency. He is just as much a President as Carter, Clinton, and G. H. W. Bush, just not "executing the office". He is at the same time still the junior Senator from Illinois, and is currently "executing" that office: he still needs to vote on the Senate Floor if need be, as does Biden.

One more point, regardless of the above: the customary transition period, whereby the newly-elected president names his cabinet, and has them confirmed by the legislative branch, demonstrates that the so-called "President-elect" does indeed have duties to actually execute prior to his swearing-in 70+ days hence. Obama also now becomes privy to national security briefings, among other things. The argument that "he isn't president yet" suggests that all his transition duties might as well be postponed until after the inauguration. Apparently James Buchanan was notably uncooperative during Lincoln's transition. This is not good government, irrespective of party. Bush Forty-Three has confirmed this with his assertion that: "these measures represent an unprecedented effort to ensure that the executive branch is prepared to fulfill its responsibilities at all times." His meager approval rating can only lift in response to this statement.

The WP crystal-ball argument also falls flat in front of close to sixty-four million voters. As far as they see it, Obama is America's forty-fourth President, and he has yet to take office. Schweiwikist (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree - He has not yet became president. This list is for presidents, not individuals who were merely elected but did not take office. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree - there are many things that could happen before Obama is inaugurated that could change the list. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree-this is not that serious of an issue and quite frankly would fall under the guide lines of being LAME , he is elected so he should remain on the list--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then the name of the page should be changed to "list of people elected President of the United States."--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 19:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree If anything weird happens in the next 2 months, he can be removed fairly easily, but any arguement to remove him now, because until January 20th he won't be president, is beyond pedantic. He's the president-elect, we'll drop the word elect on January 20th, the rest is just sillyness... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree He simply is not president of the United States. He is not even President-elect until the electoral college meets. It is not a silly distinction. Once 12:00 on January 20 comes around he will have been the President and that is that no matter what else happens, but until then he does not belong in this list without some sort of other disclaimer (for lack of a better word). This is an encyclopedia and should be accurate. I have no problem with him listed with some type of notation that he is the Presumptive President-elect. Gblaz (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree Listing him as president-elect is simply untrue. I have no problem with mentioning him in the prose ("Barack Obama is expected to be selected as president-elect when the electoral college meets..."). Stating it as a fact is no less irresponsible than proclaiming a team the Super Bowl winners simply because they have the lead going into the fourth quarter. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree This page is what the title says it is, "List of Presidents of the United States". There can be only one at a time. This was also stated publicly by President elect Obama in a recent press conference. To indicate otherwise is false and misleading information given the title of the page as well as U.S. law. Get over it everyone. It IS what it IS. Jd4x4 (talk)

Strongly Agree This list is supposed to be of actual U.S. Presidents. It is supposed to contain the factual assertion that XYZ human being is or was a U.S. President. It is not designed to present a prediction, expectation, or great likelihood of a possible future fact. Obama does NOT belong on the list. Those who disagree are, I would suggest, just using this site as a vehicle for the further boostering of Obama's political star or as an expression of astonishment and euphoria at the slates of electors apparently chosen this past November. The truth is: (1) He is neither the President, nor even the President-elect. (2) Likely or not, he might never be elected in December nor sworn in January. In such a case, a President Biden would be put on this list and proceed to be a fine President that we could be proud of. These are not just pie-in-the-sky musings. In 1912, James S. Sherman died just a few days before the election and won himself eight pledged electors, despite his impaired condition. In December, however his eight pledged electors cast their electoral votes for a live person named Nicholas Murray Butler instead. In other words, lets stick to the facts. Criticality (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise solution

This is WAY TOO important a decision to rush. I say that, being that it is so important, we give as many people as possible a chance to comment. Let's keep the discussion open until say, January 20, 2009; that way everyone can get their voices heard, and we can get a real sense of what consensus is here at Wikipedia. After that date, we can judge the consensus, and remove him from the list if we believe it is appropriate? So, how does this compromise sound? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there is still some humor to be found in this debate... :) Chaotic42 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another possible compromise: Put all the info in as if he were already President, and put parentheses around it, or maybe "grey it out", until 1/20/09. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Luckily you don't have to do that with Biden too, as he's already kind of "greyed out". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This what I was saying above. Include him, but make his row look somehow different from the rest of the list. The term "greyed out" is a good metaphor for the image we want of it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we temporarily add a section right after George W. Bush called "President-Elect," and place the table row there, with the necessary caveats, as below. Yes, I know he's not "president-elect" in the eyes of some, but it's already a widely-used and therefore extremely citeable term, and that's really what matters on Wikipedia.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 07:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Example

Presidents

All the presidents, up to...

#[*]	President		Took office	Left office	Party	Vice President	Term[*]
43		George W. Bush	January 20, 2001	Incumbent (Term expires January 20, 2009)	Republican	Dick Cheney	54
							55

President-elect

#[*]	President-elect		Takes office (expected)	Term ends	Party	Vice President-elect	Term[*]
44		Barack Obama	January 20, 2009	President-elect (Term expires January 20, 2013)	Democratic	Joe Biden	56

If "president-elect" would prove controversial, "presumptive president-elect" could be used, although I think it can safely be used without "presumptive" with enough cites.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 07:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue with using "President-elect". The government defines that term to mean that it is understood to be "presumptive" until the electoral college makes it "official". That issue was resolved on the Obama talk page.

Remember meta:Eventualism. There is really no point in investing any amount of energy in an issue that will resolve itself anyway in another month or two. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I agree, shouldn't the # column be left blank? As noted above, it's we can't yet verify that he'll be #44, as there are scenarios where he could be president, but not #44. Otherwise, I like this solution. Cheers, CP 15:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The very nature of being "President-elect" is tentative, so there's no problem having the 44 in there. If something happens to him or to Bush, it can be changed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, (Expected) could be added underneath both that and the term number.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That could be done, to avoid any hint of crystal-balling. However, the sources are already calling him #44. Maybe rather than "expected", how about "pending"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree I really like this solution - would be good to see this implemented. — ciphergoth 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree Factually correct, gets all the info to everyone. Perfect.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree You could also leave a copy of this block with comments around it, with the suggestion that it be done this way also when 2012 rolls around, so they won't have to re-invent this wheel at that time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong agree Good morning to all those currently asleep. But according to the U.S. Constitution the president is not chosed until the Electoral college votes on it. Whis does not happed for the next month. This article is entitled "List of Presidents of the United States," NOT "List of President-elects of the United States" or "List of President and President-elects of the United States." Go ahead and read the constitution if you don't believe me. One month to go, you never know if the president elects is going to die (somewhat like William Henry Harrison (albeit after swearing in) within weeks), or the electors get some mad spasm and vote wrongly from what is assigned. (electors have not always voted exactly as they were appointed to) At any rate, the point is, the vote for the presidency has technically not occurred yet.

Instead of merely counting the tally for agree and disagree it would be better to consider the arguements put forth. Saying yes and no according to certain opinions disregards the facts on hand. See the history of edits for Grigol Mgaloblishvili in this regard. (I made the same mistake, but I was clearly over-zealous and wrong, as pointed out. Lihaas (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing the Bush-to-Obama transition team is not waiting for wikipedia to decide whether he's really the President-elect or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? This is not a forum, and the above is completely inconsequential. Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the incumbent president and the federal government are officially treating Obama as the president-elect regardless of our theoretical legal summersaulting to try to prove he is not. His comment is relevant to the discussion.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I know he hasn't been elected by the electors yet, but in the most common parlance, Obama is the President-elect. The format above is an elegant fix until January 20. Coemgenus 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree a good compromise. Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree Good compromise. The "but the electoral college..." complaints have already been settled on the Obama page, and are not relevant here. Discounting such already-settled issues, the only possibly valid complaint against this is the page title may be considered inaccurate if you assume "president" is a set that does not contain "president-elect". However, that's very debatable, and the expectation of most people coming here is that the set IS inclusive, and the visual separation should satisfy dissenters. I favour this compromise as being correct, informative and timely. Omitting any mention of Obama would be seen by most readers as an error, and would break with existing precedents. I favour not using the "tentative" or "pending" syntax, since it is incorrect per the decisions made on the Obama page, but either works for me.DewiMorgan (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree but do not oppose - You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what people want to see and about what they think the definition of president is. At any rate, while I disagree with this idea, I don't oppose it, if that makes sense. Chaotic42 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You've discovered a new voting category: Strong abstain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree This resolves the dispute, keeps the article name factual, and could help with defining list inclusion criteria. Jd4x4 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree I was wondering when someone would suggest this; it's factual and confuses no one. A page titled List of Presidents-Elect of the United States would surely be marked to be merged into this one. And in two months the question will be moot: so change it already! --ScottAlanHill (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Clearly you all have some stuff to work out still. Editprotected request declined; feel free to re-add after you reach consensus. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for this compromise. Can an admin please finally update this page to separate the President-Elect from the Presidents. For the complainers it could say Presumptive President-Elect. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

NO "PRESUMPTIVE" The government defines "President-elect" to be understood that it might be "presumptive". To put "presumptive" in front of it is both original research and a redundancy. He's the President-elect. PERIOD. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on "Presumptive" - I think this government website clarifies it: it recognizes Barack Obama as president-elect, and even has a page for "The Office of the President-Elect" [2]--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

comment I believe there is an actual term used for the presumptive president elect. I think it is something like president designate or similar. BHO should not be listed as POTUS until Jan 20th. Until then I'm ok with him on the list but with the official designation 64.174.75.3 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See above, his official designation according to the government is President-elect.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - The idea of a "presidents-elect" section on this page is outright ridiculous. As has already been stated, this page is for "persons who were sworn into office as President of the United States". Of which, Barack Obama is not. I disagree strongly to this whole deal. Compromise and all. Barack Obama should not be listed here. Not until he's sworn in as the forty-forth on January 20th. 71.238.211.166 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Hello all, I've amended the table per the talk page discussion over the past 4-5 days. I've taken out the "#" column for the time being, since Obama's only scheduled to the be the next president come January, but not necessarily the 44th president if something were to happen to Bush before Inaguration Day. If you have any further suggestions, list them here. --Madchester (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not get a chance to vote on this. It seems to had slid under the radar and was a rather fast vote. I object to the break and request that the page be reverted.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Objection With-drawn. But I am wondering why, even though I checked this page every day since 5 November (when I voted above) That I did not see this vote on the Compromise until 10 NovemberMagnum Serpentine (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So what is the consensus on this?

he still seems to be listed as an "elect" when the article does not mention this.

This is why wikipedia seems to be going in the bad to worse direction. It is absolute and utter crap to have one policy for an article that happens to be popular and a different policy everywhere else. On other (international) article if a person is named/nominated/presumpted he does not, repeat does NOT, become president. As the new georgian pm article shows (and I was corrected on this, kudos on that decision) the leader only becomes so when he takes office. Clearly and logical as he has NO powers to make any decisions at the moment. That's why there is a term lame duck. Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that despite a lot of users raising it, we haven't really got an overarching policy on how to handle post-election situations, just a proposal dating back from the aftermath of the last Australian general election that doesn't to appear to have been looked at or commented on by many people working on articles relating to the US election. So everyone's trying to get individual article consensuses on one of the most difficult areas because of the formal multiple stages. More attention is needed on the policies and guidance, because these situations are not best worked out in the aftermath of elections themselves when everyone's driven by media casual use. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As this has wider implications for other articles (and we're getting potential inconsistency on this point) I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Post-election edit war syndrome#Multiple stage elections in the hope for the long term we can get a clearer way forward for future elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that since this specific is now a moot point, all discussion of the merits of listing heads of state-elect on heads of state lists should be continued on the suggested talk page: Wikipedia talk:Post-election edit war syndrome#Multiple stage elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Better picture of Barack Obama.

{{editprotected}}

I think this image of Barack Obama fits in better with the others on this page. --Delta-NC (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider following this talk section at Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus on Image. Hopefully when consensus is met, we can use either one of those images universally for all instances in need of a photo of Obama. Thanks! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. This photo is much better. Everyme 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree this picture is much better and seems more appropriate--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - Same picture as used on the main election article, and in some newspapers. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree per nom. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree better photo. --William Saturn (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree more Presidential rather than the current passport photo. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - looks like we have a consensus, if this is the case then I think it would be fair to make the change, via the template {{editprotected}}. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. I agreee with everyone else to use this pic. We use the official White House portrait for everybody except President Bush since he doesn't have one. Because of that we use his presidential picture, I'm pretty sure this is Obama's Senate picture so we should definitely switch over. Portlygrub (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Term # column for Nixon/Ford

The line between the 46th and 47th terms comes too early. It should match up with VP Ford. — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the timeline:

Nixon and Agnew begin term 46 in Jan 1969.

Nixon and Agnew begin term 47 in Jan 1973.

Agnew resigns in Oct 1973.

Ford is appointed Dec 1973.

Nixon resigns and Ford becomes president - still in term 47 - in August 1974.

Ford finishes term 47 in Jan 1977.

The cells would appear to be correct as-is; 47 had President Nixon and VP Agnew, a VP vacancy, VP Ford, and then President Ford with a VP vacancy, and then VP Rockefeller. It was a busy four years. --Golbez (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

{{editprotected}} Could an admin please change the final sentence of the lead to "His term is scheduled to end with Inauguration Day on January 20, 2009 when President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in." The smoothness of the phrasing and the proper grammar is better without the interjecting dashes. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Done --Elonka 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It also says that Washington served "two consecutive consecutive terms". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? I couldn't find it. --Elonka 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the star-footnote near the bottom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. When I look, it says, "...For example, George Washington served two consecutive terms and is counted...". --Elonka 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's at the end of one line and repeated at the start of the next line. Sometimes your mind can play tricks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How weird. It shows that way on my PC but the one on the right edge cannot be copy-pasted. I don't know what's going on now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows that way on my work PC also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Which browser? There have been some weirdnesses with Firefox, especially in areas after reflists. For example, check Template talk:Reflist#Columns bug. --Elonka 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

IE. Here's the change that made it start appearing, back on October 1. It doesn't show that way in the added text, but only in the result. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the added text. Maybe something to do with the stuff in braces. It looks normal within the edit screen, but when it displays the formatted text after "show preview" or "save page", I'm again seeing "consecutive" twice:

• The numerals indicate the consecutive time in office served by a single person. For example, George Washington served two consecutive terms and is counted as the first president (not the first and second).

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it show up the same way when you resize the browser to different widths? --Elonka 02:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I simply clicked the double-box in the upper right, to de-maximize it, and that took the extra "consecutive" away. Then I clicked the maximize again, and the extra "consecutive" popped back in there. Definitely something weird with the browser. Anyway, there's no change needed in the article text, on this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth reporting as a bug somewhere, though to be honest, I'm not sure where! --Elonka 03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of information why professors do not want to make students source wikipedia. Although the country was being born Washington did have a political party of a Federalist. As you can look up on any other webpage it does show Washington as a federalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdusty00 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

washington HAD political party

he was a federalist. --- 11/6/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.193.182 (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The concept of organized "political parties" in the modern sense was abhorant to Washington, and indeed to many of the framers of the constitution. The Federalist papers spoke against the formation of any political parties, as it was seen as creation "factions" in the government; factions create faction loyalty, meaning that the members of a political party are loyal FIRST to the party's goals, and only secondarily to the good of the nation. The earliest political parties formed towards the end of Washington's presidency, as there grew to be two sets of differing opinions as to the future of the union. But when Washington was elected, literally at the Birth of the nation, there were no political parties to speak of, as no one really had any idea of what was going to happen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington did not have a political party.Yezn0r (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with numbering of vice-presidents

The same footnote (a star) is targetted for presidents and vice-presidents. Despite vice-presidents not being explicitly mentioned in the footnote, this suggests that the content of the footnote also applies to vice's, and this is even more the case because the first sentence of the note mentions "consecutive time in office served by a single person". But what the note says in not what is really done in the table for vice's ! So there is a contradiction in the article here which has to be corrected someway. I know that US-President numbers have (at least de facto) official character, but don't know whether the same is true for vice's or the numbering used here is just a feature decided by WP editors (or another not so official entity); this doesn't matter much however: at least the contradiction should be solved somehow--UKe-CH (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the numbering system is the same, although no former Veep has ever returned to the post (though Stevenson and Fairbanks were both nominated again in later years). But does the US government actually use a formal numbering in its lists? I can't immediately find any list of Veeps on the White House site. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize: because the rightest column is adjacent to the VP column, I assumed that it concerns the VPs. The column title (term) makes clear what the column numbers are about, but the presence near "term" of a link to the star footnote made be confused. The footnote simply speaks of "numerals" -> the term numbers are also numerals, which I believe makes such a confusion more likely. Wouldn't it be better to delete that 2nd footnote link? The word term seems to be supposed to be clear enough without an explanation (at least to people with 1st language English, which is not my case), as it is used in the footnote itself. So why the link? (And if an explanation of the term (numbers) is in fact needed, then it is now missing - if one adds one, it should be in a separate footnote)--UKe-CH (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

World Almanac, p.516 in the 2008 edition, assigns numbers to the VP's and points out that they doin't coincide with the Presidents' numbers, which is obvious since they have Cheney as number 46. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We can forget this after what I say above as an answer to Timrollpickering, being now irrelevant.--UKe-CH (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Term number? --> ATTENTION PLEASE, User:Arctic.gnome

What is the source of this "term number" stuff? Looks like a wikipedia invention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It coincides with the previous Presidential election. In Obama's case? 56th prez election held, 56th prez term to comence. PS- By the way, why's Obama on this list; he's not a President. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed, he's listed as Prez-elect. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My question is, what is the source for the numbers in the right-hand column? Is there an actual source, or is that just wikipedians counting them up? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any sources. But it helps show the elected terms, the elected Presidential & Vice Presidential terms of 1973-77 for example: had 2 Presidents & 3 Vice Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It was introduced by User:Arctic.gnome around March 25-26 of 2006. Here's a representative edit: [4] He's active currently, so maybe he can 'splain this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Explain what? What sourcing does it need? --Golbez (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, do we need to source COUNTING now? Start with 1789 to 1793 = term 1. Add 1 every 4 years. We don't have to reference simple math! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we don't. I guess I have caused all this avoidable disc. by what I wrote in the section above this one, due to misunderstanding / confusion. Please excuse me--UKe-CH (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be clear that it's a wikipedia invention, and not some sort of official information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you do that without a self-reference? --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that someone else is liable to come along and not be so nice about it - they are liable to revert it on the grounds of such numbering being "original research" or "synthesis". The Presidents have numbers, as shown on the left side, accepted by historians. There is a published numbering scheme for Vice Presidents as well. There is also an established numbering scheme for Congress - every 2 years counts as one numbered Congress. For example, the new Congress starting January 6, 2009, will be the 111th Congress. But as far as I know, there is no such similar numbering system for Presidential "terms". If it were me, I would say in a footnote that this numbering is for convenience only and is not officially recognized (assuming that's the case). That doesn't mean you'll get away with it, but at least you'll have a disclaimer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's survived 2 and a half years without anyone doing it. The usage of the numbers is not just to say "there have been 55 presidential terms"; it's also useful to link each administration, just as each congress has an article. I say wait until someone else has an issue with it; if our rate is only one every 30 months, then that's fine. (I'm not necessarily saying we should keep it, though they do offer the useful links to the administrations; I was mainly responding to the issue about it being "original research". It's not. It's logical synthesis, like saying "there were X number of storms in the 2008 hurricane season" without needing an official source saying so.) --Golbez (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably because an article like this is fairly much "under the radar". Just don't say I didn't warn you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not a "synthesis", it's defined by the Constitution of the United States of America that a presidential term is 4 years, this is official. If you were to begin counting these terms from the first then you would get the exact results presented here. It's common sense. We aren't numbering presidents, we are numbering the presidential terms. This page simply states which person served in which term. Furthermore, it's valuable information worth mentioning. From looking at these terms you can see where some presidents didn't serve a full term and others served two terms. Alshain01 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the numbering of the Presidential terms. Perhaps this could be added the the List of Vice Presidents of the United States aswell. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"vacant"

The term "vacant" used on the VP column when one president replaces another during the term is misleading. It suggests those posts went without being filled for the remainder of the term. Is this really true in all cases? Doesn't seem correct. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh it is correct. The original constitution never specified a means by which a Vice Presidential vacancy was to be filled. By the time vacancies started arising the post had somewhat sunk into insignificance and Congress had specified by law the succession in the event that both the Presidency and Vice Presidency were vacant (although there's not yet been a case to make clear whether that would produce a President or Acting President). So I guess no-one was that bothered about replacements. It wasn't until the 25th amendment in 1967 that the procedure was put in place to replace a Veep midterm, and this was used twice in 1973-1974, first after Agnew resigned as Veep then after Nixon resigned as President & Ford succeeded him. Note that by this time the Veep role had come back into significance, largely because of Nixon's terms as Veep. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that was changed with the 25th. The different handling of the position should be noted in the table for pre and post 25th appointments. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Major FL problem

Why is this list showing up on the Featured Content Portal, if it is no longer an FL? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First Ladies of the United States

I believe that there should be a column for first ladies of the United States. The List as is follows the first ladies in order of their presidents term:

Martha Washington Abigail Adams Martha Jefferson Dolly Madison Elizabeth Monroe Louisa Adams Emily Donelson* Sarah Jackson** Angelica Van Buren** Jane Harrison** Leticia Tyler/ Priscilla Tyler**/ Julia Tyler Sarah Polk Margaret Taylor Abigail Fillmore Jane Pierce Harriet Lane* Mary Lincoln Eliza Johnson Julia Grant Lucy Hayes Lucretia Garfield Mary McElroy*** Rose Cleveland***/Frances Cleveland Caroline Harrison Mary McKee**** Frances Cleveland Ida McKinley Edith Roosevelt Helen Taft Ellen Wilson/Edith Wilson Florence Harding Grace Coolidge Lou Hoover Eleanor Roosevelt Elizabeth Truman Mamie Eisenhower Jacqueline Kennedy Lady Bird Johnson Pat Nixon Betty Ford Rosalyn Carter Nancy Reagan Barbara Bush Hillary Clinton Laura Bush

Note:

• denotes a niece
  • denotes a daughter-in-law
    • denotes a sister
      • denotes a daughter

All names are the common names of the First Ladies. Michelle Obama should be included as the First Lady when Barack Obama is added to the list. I understand that there is a Wikipedia article that lists the First Ladies, but I feel that they should be added to the Presidents list to make the information more readily available.

Lakersfan8 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They're more easily handled in their own list, since First Lady is not an official position, and there's not an official list of them, I don't think. --Golbez (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Interwikilink

{{editprotected}} Please insert interwiki to the danish version at da:Amerikanske præsidenter --Broadbeer (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties

I know George Washington had no political affiliation, but was John Adams still considering himself a "federalist" during his term as VP? I know he has no indication and wanted to ask. Dgreco

President-elect term end.

Since when does the president elect's term end in 2013? He could win reelection in 2012, or he could die or resign before 2013. I'm hoping we can revert it to a "?" as we do not know how long he will be President of the United States. Saberwolf116 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to be technical, his term as "President-elect" ends at noon on January 20, 2009, when he becomes President of the United States. I think we should remove the entire column "Term ends" because I think it's odd to mention a term ending before its even begun. After 20 January, though, I think it would be fine to write in January 20, 2013 since that's true information unless and until he wins re-election in 2012. JasonCNJ (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The term in which he is currently elected ends in 2013. We can deal with that problem in four years.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe instead of using for Obama the same style we use now for Bush's term end and going "Term expires January 20, 2013", we could say "Present term expires January 20, 2013", so as not to imply that the presidency will necessarily expire at the same time the term does. This acknowledges both the possibility of re-election and the more unlikely possibility of early departure from office. --Ace ETP (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I disgree with this explanation. The main table is not organized in this way. this should be addressed now.— fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the compromise, listing President-Elect Obama separately under the table. Instead of saying "Term ends", How about if we just say "Expected inauguration: Jan 20, 2009"? That goes with his status as President-Elect.

Also, when he *is* sworn in, he's sworn in to a four year term. Sure, he could die in office or resign, and therefore leave office before the end *of his term*. He could get reelected as well, and therefore serve another term. The fact of the matter is, though, that he was elected to the term that ends January 20, 2013. When he does get sworn in and added to the main section of the table, THAT is what it should read under "Term Ends" unless and until he gets reelected and is sworn in a second time.

J.D. Walker (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Term 56

In the Term column 56, currently links to Barack Obama, which is an unnecessary duplication since his name is already linked in the same row. I think it would be better to link it to this article as follows [[Presidential transition of Barack Obama|56]] because it contains details of his expected presidential term, e.g. Cabinet etc. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Please Unblock This page so we can edit. I wanted to put the presidents birth and death dates on the page. --Daniel the duck (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We are quite sorry about that. We understand you have information that you like to add, but please understand that millions of other people are also able to edit this page if we unlock it. For 99% of the pages at Wikipedia, this is not a problem, however recently this page has had a problem recently which had nothing to do with you, but which required us to lock it down to prevent general disruption and chaos. It is an unfortunate situation, but please be patient while the problem subsides. If you return in a while, the page may be unlocked by then. Otherwise, there are many other articles at Wikipedia which could probably use your help, perhaps if you browsed around a while you may find another article which you could edit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea! How about you unlock the page at 1700 EST on 20 January 2009! :D J.D. Walker (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean UTC. But it's already been thought of - that's when (lower level) protection of President of the United States ends... Timrollpickering (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's change the photos

I am new to (editing) Wikipedia. This is my first post ever so please forgive me if I break some sort of rule that I may have overlooked. I think that to remain consistent the pictures used should be portraits which are painted (I believe every president has an official painting)

I propose that the current presidents picture be changed to this: http://www.worldofportraitpainting.com/reviews-portrait/anderson-bush.jpg

As for Obama, I'm not quite sure what to do until his official portrait is made. On a side note, I think that it is ok that Obama is mentioned at the bottom of the website... The list is of US presidents, and his section is obviously lower and not connected to the list. Wikipedia is here to offer as much information possible on each page(without clutter). Maybe the picture can be removed and replaced with a this: http://bop.nppa.org/2007/thumbnails/512/00012164/00012164-CNP--003.jpg "Pending official White House portrait...

Just my two cents Thanks again in advance for joining the discussion and once again sorry if I did anything (or everything) incorrectly.

Jdabull (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)James

I think Obama's picture should stay the way it is until the portrait comes out. I am not sure if that is the official White House portrait of GW Bush that you've posted. Today they just revealed another one of him which you can see if you click this link to CNN.com [5]. I don't know if that is the official White House portrait either. If I remember correctly, for Clinton's official White House portrait they had a big ceremony at the White House and GW Bush presided over it. That's what I think will happen here. I have a feeling that these two aren't the official White House portraits and that in a couple of years Obama will reveal GW Bush's official portrait. --Tocino 18:11, 7 december 2008 (UTC)

I think we should change the GW Bush one, though, now that the official portrait is released. --Evildevil (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pres-Elect Page

Hello, (new user here so please excuse me if im in the wrong place)There seems to be a pretty big argument about placing a President elect on this page. Question: Why is he listed both here and on the president elect page list? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect. It seems like he should only be on that page and not this one until his Inauguration.HK747 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama isn't President-elect yet

He's the presumed president-elect until the electoral college casts its votes for him. -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Such pedantic adherance to minor points is not really a big deal. No major media outlet makes the distinction, not does the U.S. Government. See the numerous discussions above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Change John Adams Photo

Please change his photo to the photo on John Adams --Someonenice (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams wasn't a member of the National Republican Party or the Democratic-Republican Party because John Quincy Adams ran for president in 1824 after the Democratic-Republican Party split, and the National Republican Party wasn't formed until 1828, when he ran for re-election --Someonenice (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama photo change

With the newly released portrait of Barack Obama (see right) as his new official portrait until the White House takes there own portrait, I think that it would be beneficial to replace the 2005 Senate picture with this image. The new portrait has replaced almost all instances of where the Senate photo was being used, including the Barack Obama article, and therefore, I believe it would be very ignorant to leave this one presidential article with a picture that is three years old, when a consensus to use this new image has been established through its widespread use. Jason (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - A simple edit summary explaining that this is the Official White House Portrait helps A Lot. "Common usage" outside of a particular article's Talk is not consensus. When people refer you to the Talk page, and speak of a "consensus," they mean something that has been discussed and agreed upon, in the talk page. Even if something is broadly known or accepted, not everyone is informed, and it is courteous to clarify if challenged.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the list

Since the election I've been watch how this list has progressed. Here are some random comments on it:

First the Bush portrait: I think I got some bad news. This doesn't appear to be the President's official portrait as would displayed in the White House. Instead this appears to be from the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery. These are two different critters. Now for more bad news. It appears the picture shouldn't be here. There is a press release at their site. At the bottom it says:

All featured material is copyright © Smithsonian Institution, 2007 except where otherwise noted.

This list currently numbers each term. Since this is so, I think it would be a good idea to break down the President's dates by each term. This only applies to Presidents who were reelected. I'm thinking something like this:

#[*]	President		Took office	Left office	Party	Vice President	Term[*]
41	File:George H. W. Bush - portrait.gif	George H. W. Bush	January 20, 1989	January 20, 1993	Republican	Dan Quayle	51
42	File:Clinton.jpg	Bill Clinton	January 20, 1993	January 20, 1997	Democratic	Al Gore	52
			January 20, 1997	January 20, 2001			53
43		George W. Bush	January 20, 2001	January 20, 2005	Republican	Dick Cheney	54
			January 20, 2005	Incumbent			55

Currently Obama (and Biden on the Vice President page) is in his own section as President-elect. I OBJECT to this. While others have cited WP:CBALL as guidance (which I agree with), a clearer argument against this is the US Constitution. Section 1 of Amendment 20 clearly says (emphasis mine):

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Due to this Obama shouldn't be listed until after 20 Jan. I do think it is right to mention him in the lead, though. - Thanks, Hoshie 05:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of office-holders elect is the result of a compromise as when power has change in previous elections Wikipedia has been deluged with edit wars between those who want to change to the new person the second the results are declared (or even the second the media predict them) and those who want to wait until the actual change of power. By listing both current and -elect it's calmed things down and in general the US election hasn't had the kind of edit wars others such as the Australian one last year had. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)